What constitutes a terrorist?

[sweggeh]

What constitutes a terrorist, and why are some hated while others are revered?

Firstly, a terrorist if a person or organisation who systematically uses terror, especially as a means of coercion. Terror in this case means acts of violence, such as bombing, used to intimidate governments or populations into granting their demands.

So, lets make a short list of people who, by the dictionary definition, would be classed as a terrorist.

Che Guevara
Nelson Mandela
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
Osama Bin Laden
George Bush
Adolf Hitler
Winston Churchill

Now, already in this very short list, we can already see some differences as to how these people people are considered. Some are loved, some are hated. But at the end of the day, they all used force and violence to achieve their aims, whatever they were. Some have more blood on their hands then others, and they all have caused varying levels of damage. But, once again, they were all terrorists if you look at the definition.

So why are some hated (rightfully), but others loved and have their transgressions swept under the carpet? Are the lives of the people killed by Nelson Mandela worth less than the lives of those killed by Bin Laden?

Discuss.

EDIT PLEASE READ

Before anyone misunderstands, the point of this question is to highlight that some people like Nelson Mandela for example have committed some terrible crimes but are/were revered and loved, with almost no regard for the lives they took. I am saying they are no better than the terrorist scum like Bin Laden. Is that fair and is it right?

[Patrick Chewing]

http://morganguyton.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/troll-2.jpg
http://morganguyton.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/troll-2.jpg
http://morganguyton.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/troll-2.jpg
http://morganguyton.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/troll-2.jpg
http://morganguyton.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/troll-2.jpg
http://morganguyton.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/troll-2.jpg
http://morganguyton.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/troll-2.jpg
http://morganguyton.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/troll-2.jpg
http://morganguyton.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/troll-2.jpg
http://morganguyton.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/troll-2.jpg

[TheReal Kendall]

You know why dude. You made a similar thread awhile ago about Mandela.

[sweggeh]

You know why dude. You made a similar thread awhile ago about Mandela.

I did but it didnt reach a proper conclusion and got infested by trolls. Im just saying that some people kill and are loved afterwards. How does that come to be?

[Gr]

Well, according to that you forgot Winston Churchill. The deliberate targeting of German civilian population. Look up the Dresden bombing.

[sweggeh]

[QUOTE=Gr

[zoom17]

It depends on the scenario the terrorist US fought in Afghanistan were called “Freedom Fighters" when they fought the Soviet Union.

[boozehound]

george bush may be a war criminal, but hes not a terrorist. Terrorism is effectively violence that is not sanctioned by a state (government). It can be strategic, symbolic (to terrorize the public), but the main component is that it is done outside of the authority of a legitimate government (whatever that means)

[Gr]

Let's just put every leader of every nation that has ever been in a war. According to OP's definition at least.

/thread

[NumberSix]

Terrorism = an attempt at terrorizing people into submitting to your political agenda.

An example would be if I have a particular political goal, instead of debate, politics, democracy or normal processes I used violence and intimidation to terrorize my opponents into submitting to my political agenda.

[Godzuki]

terrorism in today's age are fundamentalist/extremists acting extremist/fundamentalist....duh :facepalm


i swear this shit is so fukkin dumb to even have to explain but people are too stupid to get that the US is not evil, nor do we always do things for only our benefit of which there are a plethora of recent history examples to prove that....and all of those internet conspiracy retards just can't fathom that because they need to paint us as the devil and boomerang the 'terrorist' label on us with their convoluted logic/thinking... same with Israel trying to protect themselves in that box they live in surrounded by enemies.

you believe in Allah okay fine, you believe in Jesus okay fine, but when you believe in Allah and force everyone to believe in Allah and go killing people who don't believe in Allah, and start regulating the world according to Allah then yes you're a terrorist. dumbest shit ever is when people have to go back 100+ years to justify other reliigions acting extremist like that, and nowhere near the issue of extremist muslims of today. they are THE issue, THE terrorists of today, the past is irrelevant fgts.

when you hate a people based on your religion and don't stop attackinig them or directly insinuate you want to blow them off of the earth then you're a terrorist. You're not a terrorist trying to defend yourself with heavy retaliatory strikes to set a deterrence(which doesn't really work because Hamas doesn't give too much a fukk about Palestinians but Israel still have to retaliate to rocket bombardments where the alternative is sitting therte with a thumb up their ass).

so only solution is to stop Hamas, which i think the US and other countries are trying to do by cutting off their funding, and the Palestinians who need to turn on them.

until then expect more Palestinians innocent deaths indefinitely,...

the whole thing in a nutshell :pimp:

[travelingman]

george bush may be a war criminal, but hes not a terrorist. Terrorism is effectively violence that is not sanctioned by a state (government). It can be strategic, symbolic (to terrorize the public), but the main component is that it is done outside of the authority of a legitimate government (whatever that means)

Herein lies the issue with the public perception and stigma of terrorism vs. state-sponsored warfare. From Merriam-Webster, for instance, the definition of terrorism is:

the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Surely state-sponsored warfare and terrorism are not mutually exclusive with this definition considered (of course, we all know about the term "state-sponsored terrorism", too).
Here's the CIA's definition, along with a few other terms:

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.
The term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country.
The term “terrorist group” means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.

I don't think it is too unreasonable to assume that the CIA worded their definition of the word "terrorism" to exclude any possibility of the U.S. government, or any respectable governments worldwide, being accused of terrorism as they define it. While the posters above me have made valid points and arguments for the naming of several renowned world leaders as "terrorists", it doesn't really seem to matter. When it comes to who is a terrorist in the public eye, it will always be easier to label the guerrilla group or militant wing in the Middle East as one (which in most cases is correct) than the esteemed politician or general who approved of tactics or methods of warfare that may, as Merriam-Webster defined it, constitute acts of terrorism.

Edit: Hey, Patrick Chewing, you bitch! Stop taking up over half of the first page with your pointless graphics. One big-ass image would have sufficed. I suppose this is what you've resorted to instead of laying out a legitimate argument.

[Derka]

Using violence and the threat of violence to force people to do what you want.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Using violence and the threat of violence to force people to do what you want.
So the state is terrorist?

[FatComputerNerd]

What constitutes a terrorist?



Your mom